alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 221.90

 222.04

 222.25

 222.29

 222.04

 221.88

 221.74

 221.94

 222.41

 221.98

 221.56

 221.62

 221.70

 222.25

 222.52

 222.63

 223.00

 223.20

 222.61

 222.06

 222.70

 222.58

 222.14

 221.79

 222.18

 221.98

 221.89

 221.84

 222.28

 221.81

 221.54

 48,124

 48,491

 49,049

 49,155

 48,491

 48,071

 47,703

 48,229

 49,474

 48,334

 47,230

 47,388

 47,598

 49,049

 49,767

 50,060

 51,046

 51,580

 50,006

 48,544

 50,246

 49,926

 48,756

 47,835

 48,863

 48,334

 48,098

 47,966

 49,128

 47,887

 47,178

STORAGE

+263

+367

+558

+106

-664

-420

-368

+526

+1,245

-1,140

-1,104

+158

+210

+1,451

+718

+293

+986

+534

-1,574

-1,462

+1,702

-320

-1,170

-921

+1,028

-529

-236

-132

+1,162

-1,241

-709

CHANGE

321

329

165

70

267

175

147

272

277

259

124

178

292

465

554

559

642

570

459

533

534

569

459

502

674

544

466

592

617

569

558

PUMPING

 2,080

 1,824

 1,773

 1,716

 1,716

 1,437

 1,609

 1,374

 1,419

 1,266

 1,515

 1,484

 1,556

 1,327

 1,105

 1,073

 1,007

 1,250

 1,265

 1,268

 1,268

 1,268

 1,260

 1,259

 784

 1,249

 891

 941

 993

 910

 963

PUMPING

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 710

 818

 0

 1,154

 3,020

 2,625

 2,984

 2,765

 2,765

 2,765

 988

 1,471

 1,402

PUMPING

 356

 141

 0

 41

 176

 199

 215

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

GEN.

*

-106

-4

-60

-81

-137

+66

-20

+38

+98

-90

-44

+26

+77

+52

+111

+5

+60

-72

-216

-3

+91

-6

-54

-138

+91

-157

+7

+119

-74

-164

+64

OR

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL O'NEILL FOREBAY January 22, 2021

DAILY OPERATIONS

DECEMBER 2020 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE GEN.

ACRE-FEET O'NEILL

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -683 12,742 1,128 23,467 40,850 -521

ACRE-FEET -683 25,274 2,237 46,547 81,026

SUMMARY

 209

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

O'NEILL GEN. 2,237

SAN LUIS PUMP 46,547 209

 47,861

DOS AMIGOS PUMP 81,026

DELIVERIES 

S. LUIS O'NEILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 600

 600

 900

 0

 0

 600

 600

 599

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 3,899

 7,734

CALIF. DOS AMIGOS

AQUEDUCT

2,354

1,825

1,949

1,822

1,428

1,184

912

729

772

522

879

760

692

942

802

657

802

1,021

939

819

1,501

1,698

3,286

3,056

3,522

3,360

3,064

2,928

2,023

1,350

1,491

 49,089

 97,368

S. LUIS

DELIV.

GAINS(+)

LOSS(-)

C.F.S.

INFLOW - C.F.S.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

TOTAL 130,019

-1,033

* DAILY DEL. FIGURES UNAVAILABLE. TOT. DEL. IS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING MONTHLY TOTALS 

Table 18
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Michael R. Sapp, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Corporation.

 
|   | /s/ Michael R. Sapp                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Michael R. Sapp                        |
|   | Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer  |
|   | Tennessee Commerce  Bancorp, Inc. |
|   | March 9, 2010                     |

 

----
Exhibit 13.2
 Certification
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
    /s/ Seung Yun AhnSeung Yun Ahn
Chief Financial Officer
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA 

4 April 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10 

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF 

 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd 

 Bldg 4, Rm 124 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 4371 Renewal (Regulatory Docket FAA-2000-8093) 

1. FAA Exemption 4371 was granted to the United States Air Force on 21 Jun 85; as amended 

to 4371K on 20 July 2009, it exempts USAF aircraft from the provisions of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regualtions § 91.177(a)(2) and 91.179(b)(1). The requirement for USAF aircraft to 

conduct low-level operations without complying with en route minimum altitudes for flight 

under instrument flight rules (IFR) or direction of flight requirements for IFR en route segments 

in uncontrolled airspace remains unchanged. 

2. On behalf of the USAF, I hereby request an extension IAW 14 CFR Part 11. The conditions 

and reasons regarding public interest and safety presented in the original and subsequent 

petitions (upon which the exemption was granted) also remain unchanged. 

2. Please contact me at (405) 739-9783 or hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil if there are any questions 

of concerns. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 

 

 TIMOTHY M. KERSEY, Lt Col, USAF 

 Chief, Flight Standards Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-09-1996
<CASH>                                       4,926,738
<SECURITIES>                                 9,402,041
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,080,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,366,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,775,464
<PP&E>                                       9,993,506
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,294,323)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,474,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,642,533
<BONDS>                                      2,181,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,401
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,510,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,474,947
<SALES>                                      4,214,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,214,475
<CGS>                                        3,532,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  879,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (229,115)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,929)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,929)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  96,500
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 331- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ GLO RIA A NN GA RC IA , A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt o f K leb erg Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 

### MEM ORA NDU M OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Yañ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appell ant, Gl or ia Ann G arci a, was conv icted o f posse ss ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e. On M ay

2 2 , 2008, app ell ant fil ed a pro s e not ic e of appeal
. On A ug ust11, 200 8, ap poin ted coun sel informe d this Court th at he would be f iling a mo tion to dismiss. On M arch 26, 200 9, this Court abate d the app eal be cause of coun sel’s failure to e ither f ile a moti on to di smi ss or

make appropr iat e ar ra ng ements w it h the re por ter for preparati on of the r epor

ter’srecord and ins tr uct ed th e tr ial co urt t o make findi ng s a s t o w hether the2

app ellanthad aba ndo ned her app eal. Base d on the t ri al cour t hea ri ng , t he tr ial co urt jud ge fo u n d thatappel lan t has aba ndo ned her app eal. T he co urt f urthe r fo und thaton Jan uary 15, 200 9 the t ri a l court e n te re d a Judg ment N unc Pro Tunc g ra nti ng addi ti onal credi t t o appel lan t for ti me she spen t in Klebe rg County Jail in this cause an d tha t ap pellan t only want ed to correct this mis tak e and did not w is h to appeal the jud g ment i n thi s c ause. Al th o u gh n o w ri tten moti on hasbeen filed i n c ompli ance w it h R ule 42.2 (a ) of the Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Pro ce d u re , based upon the e v ide nce at t he hear ing that appel lan t doe s n ot want t o c onti nue her appeal, we co n cl ude t hat g ood c ause ex is ts to sus pend t he operati on of R ule 42.2 (a ) in thi s c ase. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P
. 2
. A c c o rd in gl y, w e dism iss the ap pea l.
PERC UR IAM
Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b)
. Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s 2 5th d ay

of June, 2009.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2020 WY 53

 April Term, A.D. 2020

April 29, 2020

ISMAEL RUIZ,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-20-0007

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S 

“SENTENCE ON PROBATION REVOCATION”

[¶ 1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion after Appellant filed a pro 

se brief. Appellant took this appeal to challenge the district court’s October 23, 2019, 

“Order of Revocation of Probation.” Appellant admitted he violated his probation. The 

district court revoked probation and imposed the underlying seven to ten-year sentence on 

Appellant’s conviction on one count of aggravated assault and battery. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 

6-2-502(a)(i). Appellant entered an unconditional guilty plea to that charge.

[¶ 2] On February 27, 2020, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a 

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 

S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an “Order 

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief,” which provided that 

Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the 

Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for 

filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision” on this appeal. Appellant filed his pro 

se brief on April 15, 2020. 
[¶ 3] Now, following a careful review of the record, the “Anders brief” submitted by 

appellate counsel, and Appellant’s pro se brief, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s 

motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s “Order of Revocation of 

Probation” should be affirmed. Regarding the pro se brief, this Court notes many of 

Appellant’s claims relate to the validity of the conviction. Those claims are not properly 

made in this appeal from a probation revocation. It is, therefore, 

[¶ 4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant, Ismael Ruiz, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for 

Appellant; and it is further

[¶ 5] ORDERED that the Sweetwater County District Court’s October 23, 2019, “Order 

of Revocation of Probation,” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶ 6] DATED this 29

th day of April, 2020.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MICHAEL K. DAVIS

Chief Justice
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.574 Will you receive notice of our intention to apply cross-program recovery? Before we collect an overpayment from you using cross-program recovery, we will send you a written notice that tells you the following information: ( a ) We have determined that you owe a specific overpayment balance that can be collected by cross-program recovery;
( b ) We will withhold a specific amount from the title II or title VIII benefits (see § 416.573);
( c ) You may ask us to review this determination that you still owe this overpayment balance;
( d ) You may request that we withhold a different amount from your current monthly benefits (the notice will not include this information if § 416.573(d) applies); and
( e ) You may ask us to waive collection of this overpayment balance.
[70 FR 16, Jan. 3, 2005]
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of ALCO, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Colman Au, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Colman Au, Chief Financial Officer  Date: November 12, 2010
§ 404.1068 Employees who are considered self-employed. ( a ) *General.* Although we generally exclude services performed by employees from the definition of trade or business, certain types of services are considered a trade or business even though performed by employees. If you perform any of the services described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, you are self-employed for social security purposes. Certain other services described in § 404.1071 (relating to ministers and members of religious orders) and § 404.1073 (relating to certain public officers) may be considered a trade or business even though performed by employees.
( b ) *Newspaper vendors.* If you have attained age 18 and perform services as a newspaper vendor that are described in § 404.1030(b), you are engaged in a trade or business.
( c ) *Sharefarmers.* If you perform services as a sharefarmer that are described in § 404.1017, you are engaged in a trade or business.
( d ) *Employees of a foreign government, an instrumentality wholly owned by a foreign government, or an international organization.* If you are a United States citizen and perform the services that are described in § 404.1032, § 404.1033(a), or § 404.1034(a), you are engaged in a trade or business if the services are performed in the United States and are not covered as employment based upon § 404.1034(c).
( e ) *Certain fishermen.* If you perform services as a fisherman that are described in § 404.1031, you are engaged in a trade or business.
( f ) *Employees of a church or church-controlled organization that has elected to exclude employees from coverage as employment.* If you perform services that are excluded from employment as described in § 404.1026, you are engaged in a trade or business. Special rules apply to your earnings from those services which are known as church employee income. If you are paid $100 or more in a taxable year by an employer who has elected to have its employees excluded, those earnings are self-employment income (see § 404.1096(c)(1)). In figuring your church employee income you may not reduce that income by any deductions attributable to your work. Your church employee income and deductions may not be taken into account in determining the amount of other net earnings from self-employment. Effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1990, your church employee income is exempt from self-employment tax under the conditions set forth for members of certain religious groups (see § 404.1075).
[45 FR 20075, Mar. 27, 1980, as amended at 50 FR 36574, Sept. 9, 1985; 58 FR 64889, Dec. 10, 1993; 61 FR 38367, July 24, 1996]
Searched for **http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 99-41033 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA-DIAZ, also known as Rene Delgado-Diaz,

Defendant-Appellant.

*********************** *******************************************

Consolidated with

_____________________
No. 99-41091

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL ESCALERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-202-0 USDC No. B-96-CR-145-1

_________________________________________________________________ July 11, 2000* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

2 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gabriel Escalera-Diaz asserts only that the district court did

not afford him the right of allocution before imposing sentence on

his conviction for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b) and before

imposing sentence on the revocation of supervised release. The

government agrees that the sentences should be vacated and the

cases remanded so that Escalera-Diaz may be afforded the right of

allocution.

The district court shall, before imposing sentence, “address

the defendant personally and determine whether the defendant wishes

to make a statem ent and to present any information in mitigation of

the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C) (West 2000). In

sentencing upon revocation of supervised release, the defendant is

entitled to the right of allocution. S ee United States v.
Rodriguez , 23 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1994).

T he issue of the denial of the right to allocution is n o t

subject to harmless or plain error analysis. S ee United States v.

Echegollen-Barrueta
, 195 F.3d 786, 789 (5th Cir. 1999). We review

the record de novo to determine whether the district court afforded

a defendant the right to allocution. Id.3

The record demonstrates that the district court did not comply

with Rule 32(c)(3)(C). Accordingly, Escalera-Diaz’s sentences are

VACATED and the cases are REMANDED for resentencing.

VACATED and REMANDED.
§ 418.1335 What should you do if our initial determination is based on modified adjusted gross income information you believe to be incorrect? If you believe that IRS or you provided incorrect modified adjusted gross income information to us that we used to determine your income-related monthly adjustment amount, you can request information from us on how to contact IRS regarding the information we used. ( a ) If IRS determines that the information it provided is not correct, IRS will provide you with documentation of the error, such as a copy of your Federal income tax return. If you would like us to use the revised or corrected information to determine your income-related monthly adjustment amount, you will need to request that we use that information and provide us with the IRS documentation confirming the error. We will make any necessary retroactive corrections as described in § 418.1110(d) to your income-related monthly adjustment amount.
( b ) If you provided information to us about your modified adjusted gross income that we used to determine your income-related monthly adjustment amount, and that information is not correct, you may provide revised or corrected information. We will use the revised or corrected information if it reduces or eliminates your income-related monthly adjustment amount. We will make any necessary retroactive corrections as described in § 418.1110 to your income-related monthly adjustment amount. If you are providing corrected information about a more recent tax year's modified adjusted gross income that we used due to your major life-changing event, as described in § 418.1240, we will use the rules in § 418.1245 to determine how it will affect your income-related monthly adjustment amount.
RE: Glass plants in BAAQMD

Julian Elliot to: Stanley Tong 10/27/2011 10:46 AM

History: This message has been replied to.

Stanley:

Dan Belik says that the only gas-fired plant remains Owens-Brockway container glass in Oakland. He 

doesn’t remember that flat glass has ever been produced in the District.

Julian Elliot

Senior Engineer

Rules, Research and Planning Division

From: Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Tong.Stanley@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:06 AM

To: Julian Elliot

Subject: Glass plants in BAAQMD

Julian,

I'm trying to confirm that since Reg 9 - 12 was adopted, have there been any flat glass manufacturing 

facilities in the Bay Area AQMD?

Thanks.

Stan

Stanley Tong

U.S. EPA Region IX

Rules Office (AIR-4)

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

415-947-4122 -voice

415-947-3579 -fax